“It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing…”
So sayeth the New York Times, in: End the Gun Epidemic in America
What makes this particularly interesting is that instead of an editorial about all of the concerns surrounding jihadists, whether imported, or grown right here domestically, being proved true (again, as though the brothers Tsarnaev, or Major Nidal Hasan did not exist)… It’s about how ashamed we are supposed to be because unlike the rest of the world, the people of America are still free to exercise their right to self defense. Surely, such an outdated notion has outlived its usefulness. The world is a different place, after all.
You see America, we’ve earned this scolding, because we’re just too… American. The Times think that if we could somehow be less American, that we’d all be better off, or at a minimum, that rest of the civilized world would stop judging us, or something.
“Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.”
Awkward… And seriously, the Times doesn’t have to cross the Atlantic to find examples where gun prohibition hasn’t resulted in utopia. They need only gaze southward toward Mexico to see that despite the ban on personally owned firearms, gun violence abounds. The drug cartels certainly haven’t had any trouble finding them, and given their penchant for decapitating people with machetes, it makes you wonder why they’d even bother.
Also, the NYT seems to gloss over the recovered pipe bombs. No doubt they’ve forgotten, or just don’t want to talk about, pressure cooker bombs either. Car bombs also ignored…
This will sound flippant, but it really isn’t meant to be. I’ve said this before – be glad a psycho, whatever his motivation, can get his hands on a gun. Guns are not weapons of mass destruction. They have to be operated. They have to be reloaded. They can only be fired in one direction. You can, frequently, conceal yourself from a shooter, and take cover from the projectiles he fires. The person shooting can be engaged.
In the absence of guns, someone determined to make a point will opt instead for bombs, which are far more destructive, and far less discriminant.
A person with a gun can kill everyone in a room… A person with a bomb can kill everyone in the building, or everyone on the block.
How much damage? How big of a truck do you have?
“But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.”
They tried, dammit! This is really what it always comes down to with the leftists… Outcomes are irrelevant. It’s the intentions that matter. Lest you think this is about background checks, or getting better mental health information, it isn’t… They want to bring back the assault weapons ban.
When they passed the original assault weapons ban back in the 90s, as part of Bill Clinton’s crime bill, they had marvelous intentions. What they don’t like to talk about is the startling lack of effect that it had.
Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nil.
It didn’t move the needle in terms of reducing crime or gun violence. Everyone agrees on this – everyone. Similarly, when the ban sunsetted 10 years later, there was a lot of handwringing, but again – nothing happened. There was no decline when it passed, and there was no spike when it expired. The existence or non-existence of the ban was like that of a bear fart in the woods. It was as though it never happened.
(And it’s worth a reminder that California’s existing gun restrictions and assault weapons ban go farther than the federal ban did, and that’s in place today, for all the good it did.)
The only practical effect that it had, ironically, was a lot of innovation within the firearms industry. The venerable AR-15, America’s weapon of choice, temporarily lost its bayonet lug, had to change the compensator at the end of the barrel, and could no longer have a collapsable stock. All cosmetic features, mind you – nothing that changed the operation of the rifle.
There was also a limit on magazine capacity, sort of… No new manufactured 30 round magazines could be sold to civilians, but there were so many that had been manufactured, or were already in circulation prior to the effective date, that it didn’t make any difference at all.
There were also changes were in the pistol market, where cutting the capacity of magazines left manufacturers with a lot fewer rounds to worry about, and far less weight. Compact pistols, geared toward concealed carry, began to flourish. They became so popular in fact, that when full size pistols and magazines came back into style, they’ve continued to sell like hotcakes.
But let’s get back to the Times:
“It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”
Ahhh… There it is. Since they’ve had their ass handed to them in the Supreme Court repeatedly, and since they’re unwilling to do the actual work necessary to repeal the 2nd Amendment, an avenue that no gun control advocate seems particularly interested in pursuing – because most of America disagrees with them – they’d like to just side step all of that.
They’re going to tell us what’s reasonable. Self-appointed “Arbiters of Reason.”
Lastly, they offer some helpful electoral advice:
“What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?”
Oh please, Democrats, run on Gun Control.
It was after the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban that the Democrats lost control of the House. They don’t like to talk about it, but when pressed, their strategists concede that it was probably the AWB that led to it. You are already the minority party in both houses. You’re saying that you never want to have a majority again?
You think that an America, convinced that ISIS is here in our midst, with more on the way, is an America that wants fewer guns?
When cops say “If you’re licensed to carry, please carry,” you want to head the other direction?
You think that America is looking to have their most popular and effective classes of guns taken away now, with the enemy inside the gates?
That’s the hill where you want to make your stand?
In the words of Doc Holliday, “I’m your huckleberry.”
Share this post: